". . . And soon there would be the sun" (Faulkner 333). The optimistic tone in this statement is symbolic to a new beginning, a new day dawning to allow for a completely different life. Surprisingly, the hopeful attitude is described at the very end of William Faulkner’s "Barn Burning" after "Sarty" Snopes has discovered and grieved his father’s death for which the boy is responsible. In the story, Sarty has rushed to warn a future victim of his serial barn-burning father, Abner, when the barn’s owner shoots and kills the criminal. Throughout the work, the reader is able to know Sarty’s thoughts, and the boy is obviously devastatingly torn between choosing loyalty to his father or taking action to bring him to justice as shown when Sarty thinks of "being pulled two ways like between two teams of horses . . . " (Faulkner 327). During the whirlwind of confused emotions that Sarty experiences–including grief, guilt, and anger–he must slightly feel a sense of relief in knowing that he made the right decision in taking action that would fatally stop his father’s act of arson. Faulkner’s effort in demonstrating that a person is better off to choose morality over familiar loyalty, despite almost unbearable distress, is shown in the last scene of the story when Sarty recognizes his father’s death as tragic but proceeds to move toward a better life. As painful as the boy’s situation is, he forces himself forward, refusing to look back. The heart-wrenching emotions that the reader experiences are in response to knowing Sarty’s feelings in the midst of his internal conflicts. When reading the story, one thinks, "Why? Why does this father of four children take such extreme action to respond to menial conflicts, and furthermore provoke emotional damage among his family members?" Perhaps the answer to such questions would be revealed along with many other dramatic differences in the story if "Barn Burning" were told from Abner Snopes’ perspective rather than his ten year-old son’s.

One way that "Barn Burning" would differ if told from Abner Snopes’ point of view is that the distraught father would be able to express his thoughts to the reader. One would imagine that his bizarre and harmful actions would be given the opportunity for Abner’s explanations and his perceived justifications. The reader would have the answer to the question, "Why?" For example, instead of knowing only the dialogue surrounding the event of Abner’s slapping Sarty for the fact that the boy "would have told [the court’s attendees]" (Faulkner 321), one would see Abner’s thoughts, and would be made aware of his mind’s logical reasoning behind the abusive action. In his way of thinking, there may not have been another way to ensure Sarty’s faithfulness to keeping the Snopes family secret regarding the father’s repeated arsons. Perhaps Ab even thought this "discipline" necessary to avoid indicating an "erosion of his fatherly authority" (Johnston 199). Furthermore, if Abner were responsible for explaining the story’s events, his personal justifications for his burning barns would be clear. Assuming the reader could read Abner’s thoughts leading up to the barn burnings, one may discover a variety of possibilities. These might include explaining arson as his single plausible way to "take out his frustrations against the post-Civil War aristocracy" (Padgett 1). Maybe even Snopes’ rationalizing his actions would be in response to being mistreated by others. The story’s details could embrace Abner’s thoughts that trigger the reactions to Mr. Harris’ retaining the hog in the two’s scuffle, as well as Major De Spain’s insisting on Abner’s repayment for the damaged rug. One can assume that the one dollar that Mr. Harris required for reclaiming the hog, in addition to the "twenty bushels of corn against [his] crop" (Faulkner 327) demanded for repayment for the Major’s imported rug were beyond Snopes’ poor financial means; however, the rationale behind his actions could only be reasoned by Abner himself. If narrated by Abner, "Barn Burning" would be drastically changed in its entirety, and one major difference would be in the ability to recognize the father’s perspective by examining his thoughts and perceptions.

Another change that would occur in the story if it were told by Abner Snopes is that the reader would definitely not be as affected by Sarty’s character. Since Sarty’s perspective is the only one, it is easy to empathize with the boy and actually "feel" his emotions throughout the plot’s unfolding. For example, when he contemplates about his father and the debate with De Spain, Sarty thinks, "Maybe he even won’t collect the twenty bushels. Maybe it will all add up and balance and vanish--corn, rug, fire; the terror and grief, the being pulled two ways like between two teams of horses--gone, done with forever and ever" (Faulkner 327). When taking in the monologue, one is forced into an awareness of the ten year-old’s feelings of false hope, confusion, and despair. Not only are the boy’s thoughts influential in coming to understand him, but they also play a large role in portraying Sarty as a victim of "unrelieved horror" (Fiedler 382) due to his father’s poor decisions, as well as of actual abuse. During the time when Abner demands that Sarty go get some oil from the stable for the purpose of igniting the major’s barn, the boy frantically rushes to avoid any effects of his father’s rage, telling himself, "I could keep on. I could run on and on and never look back, never need to see his face again. Only I can’t. I can’t" (Faulkner 330). There is a distinct sense of fear and hopelessness that is made obvious through Sarty’s thoughts. Without the ability to experience what Sarty goes through, the reader would definitely not approach the level of intensity in feeling for the boy. In addition, if "Barn Burning" were told from Abner’s point of view, one may not even be exposed to the fact that his son does not stand behind him in reverent approval. While it is likely that one would feel a certain amount of pity for Sarty despite Abner’s perspective, what the reader understands about the boy would be dramatically different.

Another way that "Barn Burning" would differ if viewed from Abner Snopes’ perspective is that the story’s descriptions and opinions of characters would change. Of course, as Sarty’s point of view as the conspicuous one, the reader is presented with his interpretation of the characters surrounding him–the main one being his father. In the evening following the trial with Mr. Harris, Sarty details Abner as having "a wolf-like independence and even courage . . . which impressed strangers, as if they got from his latent ravening ferocity . . . a feeling that his ferocious conviction in the rightness of his own actions would be of advantage to all whose interest lay with his" (Faulkner 321).

Naturally, if Abner Snopes’ view were the one expressed, he probably would not have described himself with these words. Abner also would have failed to weave into the story characteristics showing that he is "a man who is loyal to no one other than himself . . ." (Loges 43). In fact, detailed orientation on the father’s qualities may not even appear if Abner were telling the story, since while Sarty is the depicter, there is no direct description of his own personality. Also, other family members would be portrayed differently if the story were within Abner’s scope instead of Sarty’s. The son tells of his twin sisters as being sluggish and stolid, and "wearing only an expression of bovine interest" (Faulkner 331). The older brother is told of "chewing [tobacco] with [a] steady, curious, sidewise motion of cows" (Faulkner 330). It is apparent that Sarty produces his own personal opinions of his family members; but, were it Abner’s obligation to tell the story, a number of differences would occur when telling about the relatives. The father might detail his son and daughters in a completely different way, and perhaps mention each of their names, unlike Sarty’s omission of them. Naturally, since "Barn Burning" is viewed from the son’s standpoint, the stated opinions and descriptions are distinctly his, and the characters would be portrayed very differently if described by Abner.

An additional way that "Barn Burning" would change if shifted from Sarty’s to Abner’s point of view is that the plot itself would differ. Since Abner is not actually present when some of the story unfolds, the very events that occur would be altered, perhaps causing the most extreme and obvious of differences. For example, one of the most climatic points in the story occurs at a time when Abner Snopes is not present. When Sarty is left at home while Abner pursues burning Major De Spain’s barn, the boy’s family is instructed to prevent him from escaping from the house. However, Sarty fights himself free from his mother’s grip by "jerking and wrenching . . . " (Faulkner 331), and then sets off to warn the major. The events of his running, warning De Spain, hearing the gunshots, realizing his father is dead, and grieving, are all experienced in Snopes’ absence. Were the story told from Abner’s perspective, the reader would miss out on these critical occurrences. Instead, from Abner, the reader may hear about the father’s planning the arson, wrestling with his conscience, or worrying about the son’s desire to betray him. In fact, one would experience the story only up until Abner’s death where it would end. There may be descriptions of what Snopes feels--emotionally and physically--but nothing after his final breath. Therefore, the most significant difference in the story would be the radical transformation of the plot’s description if told from Abner’s point of view.

As stated earlier, an important difference that would result from Abner’s presenting "Barn Burning" is the fact that the reader would be able to know the father’s thoughts and feelings. It is true that Snopes would be given the opportunity to explain and justify his actions. Nevertheless, it is probable that it would be nearly impossible for Abner’s rationalizing to strike a sympathetic chord with the reader. While one would be given an exposure to the reasoning behind Abner’s behavior, the man’s explanations for actions like hitting his child and setting barns ablaze would not keep a reader from knowing what is right or wrong. Actually, just the fact that Snopes would attempt to justify his crimes may cause one to become more outraged toward him. Abner would not be seen as a better person if he were the narrator of the story.

The point is that despite incredible differences in the portrayal of thoughts, feelings, descriptions, opinions, and events, the essence of "Barn Burning" would remain intact if the perspective were to shift from Sarty to Abner. The idea, expressed by Faulkner, of the importance of choosing morality over loyalty would remarkably stay the same, whether the story is told by the innocent victimized child or the criminal-minded father. After all, despite the emotions of grief and guilt, the underlying reactions to Sarty’s role in Abner’s death are those of relief and justice. Amazingly, after an analysis of the numerous and extensive changes that would occur if the point of view were replaced by Abner Snopes’, "Barn Burning" would still push forth the truth that morality prevails.

Faulkner, William. "Barn Burning." First-Prize Stories 1919-1957: from the O. Henry Memorial
      Awards. Ed. Diana Klemin.  Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1957. 318-333.

Fiedler, Leslie A. "William Faulkner: An American Dickens." William Faulkner: The Critical
      Heritage. Ed. John Bassett. Great Britain: W&J Mackay, 1975. 378-84.

Johnston, Kenneth G. "Time of Decline: Pickett’s Charge and the Broken Clock in Faulkner’s ‘Barn
      Burning.’" Studies in Short Fiction 11 (1974): 434-36. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism.
      Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Vol. 11. Detroit: Gale, 1979. 199.

Loges, Max L. "Faulkner’s ‘Barn Burning.’" Explicator 57.1 (1998): 43-45.